MR. MCCURRY: All right, ladies and gentlemen, today's
delayed version of the White House daily mishmash. Mr. Hunt, would you
like to start the questions? Let me tell you a little bit about next
week. We're going to do two things for next week -- then we can do the
budget.

First of all, on Tuesday next week, the President is going
to host an event here related to our effort to remove people from
welfare to work. He's following up on something he talked about in the
State of the Union address, getting private corporations involved in
making pledges to make employment opportunities available to those who
are moving into the work force. And that is then followed two days
later next week by the education town hall that we will do at the
Robert Byrd, Jr. High School in Clarksburg, West Virginia. So in a
very real sense next week, we're talking about making those changes
that as we prepare for a more competitive America in the 21st century,
lifting people out of welfare dependency and poverty, and preparing the
next generations of Americans for the challenges they will face in the
work force. Exciting week.

But by saying that, we can now put out the advisory for
all the West Virginia folks who have been asking for it.

Q What time is that meeting, the town hall meeting?

MR. MCCURRY: It's going to be around 1:00 p.m. in the
afternoon. That's next Thursday -- 1:00 p.m. It will be televised
locally up there and he'll probably have some other event, community
event for a larger audience while he's there, too.

Q Is that going to be just a day trip?

MR. MCCURRY: That's a day trip, yes. No overnights. I
can arrange that. (Laughter.)

Q The Tuesday event, is it a large eastern crowd, or who
will you be inviting in?

MR. MCCURRY: It will be CEOs of five major companies that
have taken it on themselves to organize the welfare to work
partnership. And then they'll be talking about what they're going to
do to elicit additional private sector assistance, in response to the
President's admonishment to the private sector that they need to be a
part of the effort to successfully implement welfare reform.

MR. TOIV: And a considerable number of other --

MR. MCCURRY: Those are the five organizers of this
partnership and there will be a large number of other businesses
represented. Barry can tell you more about who all is participating.

Q The organizers are at which companies?

MR. MCCURRY: The five that will be sort of spearheading
the group are Burger King, United Airlines, Monsanto, Sprint and UPS.
There will be a number of other representatives as well.

Now, budget update. Here's the latest from the front,
from one of our key participants. He says that our team from the White
House, led by Erskine Bowles, met with Speaker Gingrich, Majority
Leader Lott this morning. They then took a break and our folks
caucused with Democrats -- I think House and Senate Democrats. Maybe
just Senate Democrats -- House and Senate? I forgot to ask.

Anyhow, we had a little caucus with our own, and then Mr.
Bowles and company went back to work with the Speaker and the Majority
Leader a short while ago. They're getting ready to probably be -- just
a few moments ago and they expect they will be working a number of
hours more today.

Q Are there still 12 contentious issues or have they been
reduced?

MR. MCCURRY: No, the list has been reduced. They're
working their way through some of the outstanding issues and it's going
swimmingly.

Q In retrospect, does the President think perhaps --
MR. MCCURRY: Which means they're in deep water.

(Laughter.)

Q In retrospect, does the President think perhaps it
might have been ready to get a written agreement before he came out and
declared victory?

MR. MCCURRY: Absolutely not. It was important to get --
they had good understandings, confirmed by all of these leaders in good
faith, based on their conversations. And then, as with any framework
for a budget agreement, they're now doing the hard work of codifying
it. The next step, obviously, is a set of written understandings that
will make it possible for the House and Senate budget committees to
draft a budget resolution which Congress has to act upon.

And, of course, following that, there will be all the work
that the authorizing and appropriating committees do to write
legislation. There will be fights back and forth and disagreements and
haggling over wording all the way up to the completion of the budget
process. Some of this is the normal part of the budget process, but
it's considerably easier when you start with a verbal agreement from
the leadership and the President, translate that into written
understanding, and then move on to a budget resolution and the
necessary budget legislation, which is what they're doing.

Q Mike, when your budget team stood before us that day
that they announced the deal, Gene Sperling said that the bulk of the
tax cuts would go to the middle class. Dick Gephardt this morning
said, au contrare, the bulk of the tax cuts go to the top income
earners in the country, as things now stand, and that there's going to
be very disproportionate tax cuts. How do you reconcile those?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, what they call the distribution tables
won't be done by the Treasury Department until they have actually got
some specific legislative language that they're looking at, so I don't
know that anyone, including Mr. Gephardt, are in a position at this
point to understand what the distributional impact of any tax code
changes would be.

We know what we have in our agreement. We've got those
things that target tax incentives and tax credits to middle income
families, and we're very confident that that is an important part of
the package. Now, how it breaks out versus some of the things the
Republicans want to put in related to capital gains and others, I just
-- I don't know. I'm not -- substantively, I don't know that they are
at the point where they've agreed on those particulars yet.

Q That's not what Rubin said. He didn't talk about his
own -- the budget you proposed, he said the deal that you made would
show that the bulk of the tax cuts go to the middle class.

MR. MCCURRY: And I think that remains true. That is what
the agreement that they reached May 2nd requires, and they're trying to
codify that now in a way that they can demonstrate through the analysis
the Treasury would do how it would affect people in different income
groups.

Q So Gephardt is wrong?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't think he's in a position to know
what the distributional impact is.

Q But you're not even in a position to know because you
said you don't know.

MR. MCCURRY: Look, we know what we shook hands on, and
that's ultimately going to have to be in the agreement.

Q Can this deal still fall apart?

MR. MCCURRY: Only if people act in bad faith, and right
now everyone's acting in good faith.

Q Is it the White House understanding that whatever the
tax package will be, it will be handled as separate legislation?

MR. MCCURRY: I think that's one of the elements that
they're discussing, so I don't want to comment on that while they're
most likely actively considering that issue.

Q Can you tell us what the understanding was when they
shook hands?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't think as to how they would structure
the legislation and when it would be presented to Congress for votes, I
don't think that was part of the agreement. It was more what would be
contained within the final structure of the agreement. But the
sequencing of votes or how you would break up the bills I don't think
is something that they addressed. They may have talked about it, but I
don't think that they tried to finalize any arrangements on that,
partly because, obviously, some committee chairs on the Republican side
felt that they have some prerogatives at stake on that question.

Q Well, are they going down to the wire now since they
have several more hours of --

MR. MCCURRY: They're already beyond the wire because
they've passed the deadline, but they're working and hope to resolve
this soon.

Q Do Erskine Bowles and the others have direct contact
today with Archer?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know the answer to that. My
understanding was that they saw the Speaker and the Majority Leader and
presumably some of the other Budget Committee folks that they've dealt
with. I don't know that they've dealt with any of the tax-writing
chairs.

Q Can they start the markup before this deal is codified?

MR. MCCURRY: They've indicated that they won't. I think
the Republican leadership has said that they want to wait until they've
got this in hand before they try to write the resolution, but there's
been, I think, enough contact back and forth that they could move
fairly swiftly to markup once they reach the agreements they're
attempting to reach now.

Q Mike, on the Hill today they're reviewing ValuJet and
fire suppression devices. There seems to be a variety of viewpoints as
to when these devices need to go into aircraft -- not just new, but
refitting old aircraft. And yet, the FAA is trying to make a rule
where you have -- with three versus five years. Passenger safety
groups want it done yesterday. Where does the White House stand on
when they want these devices in?

MR. MCCURRY: I think we are pretty much leaving that up
to the FAA to address, and they've done so. They've provided --
Secretary Slater said that he understands that the FAA is moving
expeditiously to address the requirements that they've got for airline
safety. We have followed that because of the Vice President's role in
airline safety questions, so we have had some contact both with
Transportation, with FAA directly. But they've got the lead on dealing
with it.

Q But the passenger safety groups don't seem to be
satisfied with the timetable. Are you prepared to adjust it and speed
it up?

MR. MCCURRY: I'm sure the FAA will hear out their
concerns and act appropriately.

Q Well, will the White House push the FAA?

MR. MCCURRY: We will follow their work, but we're
satisfied that it's being treated with a sufficient degree of urgency
by Secretary Slater.

Q How do you feel about the closing down of the
Washington Grand Jury on Whitewater?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't have any particular reaction to
that. I don't know what it means, doesn't mean, or on what basis there
would be any useful comment I could make.

Q Has it closed down?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't even know that that's true. You
would have to ask others who know.

Q I'm a little confused on the new Brady forum that the
President talked about today in his speech. He said if you don't have
proof of residence then you can't make a purchase. But your fact sheet
suggests that all you have to do is just make an affirmative statement
that you live in a state. So all you have to do is just say, I live
here.

MR. MCCURRY: Come on, Barry. Barry told me he left it
this way. I'm trying to find the paper -- want me to get the cheat
sheet for you? Mr. Toiv.

MR. TOIV: They've promulgated regulations that authorize
licensed gun dealers to require specific proof of residency, like a
driver's license or utility bill, something like that to prove that
you've been living in a particular place for 90 days.

Q The fact sheet says it's different for non-citizens and
citizens, and suggests non-citizens have to show -- citizens, all they
have to do is just make an affirmative statement. You're saying it's
actually --

MR. TOIV: Well, citizens fill out a form as well and say
they are residents. But there's a stronger requirement for
non-citizens.

Q But the citizens have to provide proof, or can they
just walk in, say I live here, give me a gun?

MR. TOIV: Citizens have to show their residency, they
have to show and ID.

Q Like a driver's license.

MR. TOIV: Like a driver's license, yes.

MR. MCCURRY: Not just a library card.

Q Also a question on the President's financial statement
that you released today -- all those gifts that he received, does he
keep those gifts, or does -- I thought if the gift was over a certain
amount of money he had to give it away or he couldn't keep it.

MR. MCCURRY: No, no, he can keep them, and the purpose of
the disclosure is anything that he then accepts as a gift is then
publicly disclosed. The only restrictions exist on gifts that are
given by foreign governments if they are in excess of value of $245,
they have to be accepted on behalf of the U.S. government and they get
put into the National Archives as a gift to the people of the United
States.

Q Well, all those gifts, including the golf clubs from
Greg Norman, he keeps that stuff?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes. Those are things that he elects to
take personal possession of and he can do that; it just has to be
properly disclosed. These are not deemed to be income. They fall
within the gift provisions of the tax code.

Q How much more is he worth now than when he became
President?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, if you consider net worth and look at
the line that says, "liabilities," considerably less than when he
arrived.

Q Let's take away the legal debts. How --

MR. MCCURRY: I would have to go back and look. His range
-- you can't get an exact valuation on the value of his assets by
looking at this -- these disclosure statements are a little bit
insufficient because they're not the same as a net worth statement. So
you can't describe this as net worth. But the range of assets that he
reports for himself, for Mrs. Clinton and for Chelsea in '96 ranges
between $760,000 or $1.7 million. So it's a large distance there in
the valuation categories, and whether that's up or down, I presume
because of performance of the market and a strong economy and the
growth in asset portfolios the President has enjoyed, it's probably
somewhat up. But I can't calculate for you by what amount without
looking at previous years.

Q Is the First Lady's money that is listed there still
going to charity, she's not retaining that?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes -- well, we -- to get a better and more
thorough understanding of the Clintons' finances I suggest you go back
and look at their tax returns that we released last month, because that
gives you exact dollar amounts for things like her royalty income,
which are only reported here in broad categories. So this doesn't help
you nearly as much as the public release of the tax return, which we
did last month.

Q Do you know the story behind the $4,000 statue of
Eleanor Roosevelt, and then the bust of Franklin Roosevelt?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't except what is indicated there in
the report, that they were given, I think in one case, by the
foundation up in Hyde Park.

Q The Eleanor Roosevelt Monument Fund that gave the
$4,000 statue --

MR. MCCURRY: Right.

Q Was that at some ceremony or was it sent here?

MR. MCCURRY: I think it was sent here and is on display
here. One of the -- the Franklin Roosevelt bust is the one that is in
the Oval that you guys see when you're in the Oval.

Q And you're not aware of where the Eleanor Roosevelt
statue is?

MR. MCCURRY: I can check on that.

Q -- Roosevelt Room --

MR. MCCURRY: I don't think so. Ann thinks it's in the
Roosevelt Room. I don't think so, I think it's in the residence.

Q These are things they intend to keep when they leave
the White House?

MR. MCCURRY: These are things they've taken personal
possession of. They could donate them back at some point if they wish
to.

Q He receives many more gifts -- these are the only gifts
he wants to keep personally.

MR. MCCURRY: Correct. This is a fraction of those things
that are reported at the Gifts Unit. People send stuff to the White
House all the time for the President; those get properly cataloged and
sent off to the Gifts Unit. A lot of them get put into displays at the
Smithsonian.

Q The gift from Mr. and Mrs. Greg Norman, was that given
at the time of his knee? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: No, that was given -- because that happened
in '97. This is calendar year '96. This was when they were in
Australia.

Q So he's actually used these clubs?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know. He got them in advance. He
got them prior to going and he took them down there when he played with
"the Shark."

Q What's the deal with the commemorative watches, the $10
commemorative watches?

MR. MCCURRY: They are premium items. (Laughter.)
There's a watch that apparently has a lovely photo of the First Couple
on the face of the watch, and they are described as being ultimately
tacko. (Laughter.)

Q Does the President describe them that way?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know if he describes them, or not.
He loves them and they like to give them away to friends for fun.

Q Can we buy some?

Q If you get a Wolf Blitzer pen -- (laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: I have a Wolf Blitzer pen.

Q Can you trade a Wolf Blitzer pen for a First Couple
watch?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know. I'll talk to the big guys.
(Laughter.)

Q Because I might like to work that out.

MR. MCCURRY: You're willing to trade your Wolf Blitzer
pen for a --

Q I might, I might.

Q No way.

Q Ultimately wacko. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCURRY: For one of those watches?

Q I might. You never know. I'd like to know what my
options are.

Q Please, you're embarrassing me. (Laughter.)

Q Did the President wear that watch?

Q How about the Baby Bell stock? Shouldn't that be
tucked into the blind trust?

MR. MCCURRY: No, these are Chelsea's stocks that she
inherited from her grandfather. For sentimental reasons she has
elected to keep them in her possession. Lawyers have looked at that
and they don't see any conflict issues that arise from that. She just
wanted to keep them mostly for her own personal reasons.

Q Under the law her assets have to be reported jointly
with her parents. Is that --

MR. MCCURRY: Yes. Her assets, Mrs. Clinton's assets and
the President's assets are all deemed reportable on the form.

Q And is there an age cutoff? I mean, if she --

MR. MCCURRY: I think she has to report because she's a
dependent child. I think when she's no longer a dependent child or so
claimed on, presumably, their tax return, she falls outside the
reporting as such, I think. I'd have to double-check that.

Q Mike, on the payments to Williams and Connolly, it says
between $1 million and $5 million. Do you know whether it's more
towards the $1 million side or the $5 million side?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, those are all -- if you go back -- we
did not attach to the disclosure to -- the actual document that was
filed had two lengthy, lengthy attachments. They are the reports of
the presidential legal expense trust, which we've already released to
you and the exact dollar evaluation of the liabilities for their legal
bills are there, so don't rely on these categories. Again, we've
already publicly released exact dollar amounts on those.

Q The Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis memorabilia?

MR. MCCURRY: That -- apparently -- is it books -- books
that were purchased at the Jackie Kennedy Onassis auction -- estate
sale auction that was held, what, several months ago.

Q Do you know what kind of books?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't. I think they were books that had
been in her personal library. I don't know the title of the books.

Q They were purchased and given to the Clintons, or the
Clintons purchased them?

MR. MCCURRY: Given to the Clintons. Actually, I believe
they were ultimately destined for Chelsea. Some of these --by the way,
her gifts have to be reported here, too, so some of these are gift
items given to her.

Q Mr. Kuchma's coming by tomorrow. What's he going to
talk about?

MR. MCCURRY: I haven't seen the work-up on that. We're
talking about -- we obviously are going to give the government of
Ukraine, since they'll be intensely interested, our understanding and
our views on the concluded document, Founding Act, between NATO and the
Russian Federation. That's of keen interest to the government of
Ukraine. They will explore other issues related to environmental
safety and nuclear safety that will presumably be part of the agenda of
the Denver Summit of the Eight. That has been an ongoing issue before
the leaders at the summit, and also economic and trade liberalization
issues.

Those are the general categories. I'll try to get
something a little more specific.

Q What do you think of the incredible difference between
Yeltsin's interpretation of what was signed and what you all said here
yesterday?

MR. MCCURRY: I'd say that there is a vibrant and dynamic
political culture in Russia that President Yeltsin must carefully
navigate.

Q Including, like, misrepresenting what was in the
Founding Act?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't --

Q Because he was flatly contradicting what people said at
that podium yesterday.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the Founding Act is the Founding Act,
and upon approval by the North Atlantic Council as early as tomorrow,
it'll be plain for people to see in black and white.

Q Is the President ready to cut some of the aid to Israel
in order to get more aid for Jordan?

MR. MCCURRY: There's a long and a short answer to that.
We have for some time been talking with King Hussein ways in which we
can deepen and nurture the peace process that he has so ably advanced.
He has, in the opinion of the United States government, taken genuine
risks in support of peace and has made some requests that are related
to the risks he has taken for peace.

We've been looking at ways that we might do that. We
haven't made any final decisions on that, but we will continue to
consult closely with the government of Israel and others in the region
about how to be supportive of some of the things that the King
specifically has requested.

Q Is he going to do it?

MR. MCCURRY: That was a pretty broad hint, but we don't
have a specific answer to it.

Q Why don't you just say it?

MR. MCCURRY: Because I don't think it's been decided. I
can't tell you something that hasn't been decided.

Q But what you seem to be implying is that that trade-off
would be with the approval of Israel -- Israel would sign off on the
U.S. --

MR. MCCURRY: We would consult very closely with the
government of Israel on something like that.

Q Is that why the Foreign Minister, David Levy of Israel,
is coming here to talk about that issue right now?

MR. MCCURRY: The State Department already said that they
anticipated a visit by him and it has a wide-ranging agenda, but that
may be one of many items on the agenda.

Q Can you give us a sense of -- since you have thrown out
this broad -- of the type of exchange or the type of aid that would be
forthcoming toward Jordan and perhaps taken away from Israel?

MR. MCCURRY: Not specifically, no. I mean, they've got
-- the largest dollar volume of assistance is obviously for security
purposes, but there is also economic development assistance that's
providing a variety of ways in addition. But as most people know, the
largest bulk of our government-to-government assistance in that region
is related to military security.

Q Mike, looking ahead to tomorrow's --

MR. MCCURRY: And obviously $50 million -- that's the
reported amount -- is something of a fraction of the total aid.

Q Mike, looking ahead to tomorrow's Tuskegee syphilis
apology -- experiment apology, is the President or Dr. Satcher going to
propose a boost in STD prevention monies, which a lot of public health
groups seem to be criticizing, if there's not enough to go around?

MR. MCCURRY: He will have some specific ideas tomorrow on
things that we can do to address in general the question of proper
funding and proper accountability for federally funded medical
research, but not specifically in that direction.

Q Will that include an aid package to boost the money?

MR. MCCURRY: Not beyond what's already contained in our
budget.

Q Is it the kickoff of the President's effort to talk
about race relations?

MR. MCCURRY: The President has been doing a number of
things to kind of talk about diversity and talk about healing and talk
about reconciliation. And I think this fits into a pattern of things
that the President has pursued this year that really talk about how we
can come together as a very diverse country that should celebrate its
racial ethnic diversity and use that as an element of our strength as
we think ahead of the world we live in.

We live in a very diverse, multicultural world in which we
need to compete effectively, and we do so best when we come together as
one country and set aside our differences, whether they're
gender-based, racial-based, based on ethnicity and use that as a way to
advance the idea of one America. And I think this event tomorrow is
part of that.

Certainly, the President, in a sense, was celebrating that
when we talked about the race barrier being broken in major league
baseball, he'll be talking about that next month when he speaks at the
University of California at San Diego and really lays out in a broader
way the way in which we can advance the kind of dialogue between races
that will break down some of the prejudices that still exist in our
society.

Q Has he seen the figures?

Q Mike, to follow up on Wolf's question, you talk about
reconciliation, this was a hell of a breach of trust. How do you --
does an apology get it tomorrow? How do you --

MR. MCCURRY: Look, this was an extraordinary episode in
the history of our country and a real blight on the record of the
United States government. It has been dealt with in the technical
legal sense that there have been compensation or recompense for those
who were victims. But there's never been the formal apology that the
President believes is deserved in this case. And it's something that
the victims and their families and the residents of Macon County,
Alabama will appreciate and have indeed sought, and the President
thinks it's most warranted to give it.

Q But, Mike, many still think that it's a slap in the
face that the President didn't go to Alabama especially since these
gentlemen are so old.

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know -- if you will talk to some of
those who will be here -- I think four or five of the eight surviving
members will be here. One of them lives in Massachusetts and wouldn't
have been able to go to either location because he's unable to travel.
And the remaining folks who are in the area around Tuskegee would not
likely have been able to travel even to an event that would have been
there.

So we are satelliting the event there. I think the
President thought it was proper and dignified to use the seat of our
government and the White House itself as a place to render the apology.
And we've heard nothing but gratitude expressed by the families and the
representatives that we've dealt with. Maybe you're hearing something
from somewhere else, but we've been in very close contact with the
families.

Q Mike, once again, a Cuban-American flotilla will leave
Florida on Saturday to demonstrate in front of international waters
near Cuba. Is the White House taking any steps to make sure no
incidents occur?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we, through both the Coast Guard and
then their overflights indicated through the FAA, monitor very
carefully those flotilla activities. We have had contact with the
Cuban Foreign Ministry through our interest section in Havana to talk
about that flotilla. We've received some assurances that they will
take a proper posture with respect to the flotilla.

But at the same time, we strongly urge those who
participate not to conduct any unnecessarily provocative actions, so
that they protect their own safety and the safety of others who want to
commemorate the events that tragically resulted in the death of
innocent airmen over international waters.

Q Mike, does the President think that the failure of the
cloture vote on the comp time bill opens the door to maybe getting a
bill that he can sign now?

MR. MCCURRY: He sure hopes so. I mean, we've got -- we
have to get -- we need to get a bill that preserves flexibility for
employees. This debate is real simple. It's about people should have
the choice of getting paid overtime if they want overtime, or getting
the compensating time in hours off.

And the problem with the Ashcroft bill is it removed that
flexibility. The employer could make the decision. And there are an
awful lot of people in this country who need to work overtime and need
that extra income to make ends meet. And they ought to have that
choice and that flexibility. And that's what they get under the
President's bill. They would not have gotten that under the Senate
bill which is why we indicated we would veto it.

And now I think they will go back to looking at the
President's proposal which is a reasonable one and a good one and which
is the only bill that really preserves the kind of flexibility for
employees themselves that really would make the idea of comp time a
genuine one for millions of American workers.

Q Who did you say was warned against provocative actions
-- on the Cuba question?

MR. MCCURRY: Some of those who were -- not warned -- but
they were -- we advised them that they have to respect international
boundaries, international territorial waters and that they have to
organize these commemorative events in ways that are not unnecessarily
provocative.

And we work -- you know, we've actually had good liaison
with these groups through various federal offices down in south
Florida. So we work with them and try to understand what routes are
going to be followed and how certain events will unfold. We've got the
Coast Guard in a position to be cooperative. I think there are other
Defense Department folks who get involved in monitoring some of that.

So I think we've had successful commemorative flotillas,
and that's what we want to see happen. We don't want to see anyone
unnecessarily endanger themselves.

Q On the welfare initiative, how much progress has been
made since the CEOs met with the President in January, and what are you
going to ask them to do now, what's next?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we are -- we have asked them to be a
part of the extraordinary commitment that the President sought from the
private sector, to move a million people from welfare dependency into
work situations. And the response has been very, very gratifying. The
President, tomorrow, wants to applaud the CEOs who have taken it on
themselves to organize the effort to make this happen, to get others in
the private sector committed to hiring off the welfare rolls. And
tomorrow will be, in part, the celebration for some good work that's
been done in the private sector --

Q You mean Tuesday.

MR. MCCURRY: Next Tuesday, I'm mixing my days up. Next
Tuesday will be, in part, a celebration of the good work that's been
done since the President put that challenge before the private business
community in the State of the Union address.

Q Does this mean the White House is actually keeping
track of how many people each one of these businesses have hired from
the welfare rolls?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't know that we're doing it here, but I
think there are some folks who are working with this group that are
going to try to track those commitments, yes.

Q The First Lady of Panama is coming here tomorrow to
meet with Hillary Clinton, the First Lady. Do you know about that
meeting?

MR. MCCURRY: I don't. I'll have to check into that.
Maybe get you some more on it.

Q To go back to the welfare. When you say, who are
going to try to track those commitments, do you know whether any of
these groups have already hired welfare recipients?

MR. MCCURRY: Some of them have. I think some of the
companies have previously announced some of their own initiatives.
There will be others that will be indicating their own intent. And
we're beginning to build some momentum now for the effort in the
private sector to hire people off of welfare and into work.

Q You mean someone outside of the White House is keeping
track of these commitments?

MR. MCCURRY: I think they're actually going to announce
the formation of an outside entity that will do some of that work. And
that will be staffed -- a partnership, probably a nonprofit partnership
that will help coordinate the work of these private sector interests.

Q Mike, related to Tuskegee, there's an interest group
that called on the President today to acknowledge or make some apology
for the anonymous CDC approved screening of babies for HIV, babies that
were never treated for HIV after 1988. Is the President going to say
anything about that or broadly talk about that at Morgan State?

MR. MCCURRY: I'd have to look into that. I'm not
familiar enough with that to have an answer.

Q Can you talk a little more about the Morgan State
address Sunday?

MR. MCCURRY: I'll do that tomorrow. We'll set that up
tomorrow. Anything else?

Q If the budget talks are expected to last for several
hours, is it likely then that the documents codifying this agreement
won't be finalized until tomorrow and that the mark-ups won't be until
tomorrow?

MR. MCCURRY: Let's hope so, then we can all go home.

Q No, but you're not expecting them today, or --

MR. MCCURRY: I wouldn't, you know -- it's almost 4:00
p.m. -- I'm sort of, let's wait and not put the lid on the idea that
they're going to do something today for a couple more hours.

Q Mike, has the President outright said that he would
veto the crime bill if it comes to him as it was passed last week?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes, we put a veto --

Q You said he would veto it for sure?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes. I think we did. We put a specific
veto threat against the House-passed bill.

Q The House-passed bill, the thing he was criticizing
today, but he will veto it if it comes --

MR. MCCURRY: Right. In that form. Although, we've
indicated we'd like to try to see changes made as it works its way
through the Senate. Anything else today? Very good. Goodbye.